Journal pudge's Journal: Axelrod on Sotomayor 6
On PBS NewsHour yesterday:
DAVID AXELROD: Judge Sotomayor has just a spectacular story. You know, I think no one in our memory has had the credentials that she brings to the court.
... [she] has a great personal story. Raised in the South Bronx, her father died when she was young. Her mother was a nurse, raised her.
No offense to Judge Sotomayor, but her personal story is no greater than mine or anyone else's. I know America has a long history of giving extra credit to people who were poor or "disadvantaged" in some way, but it's utter nonsense, and certainly no serious qualification for the Supreme Court of the United States. But Axelrod was just getting started with the crazy (I help him out with the words in brackets, because he apparently has trouble remembering what Sotomayor actually said):
JUDY WOODRUFF: Some conservatives
... are citing a statement she made in, I guess, 2005 where she said Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal are, quote, "where policy is made." How is that going to be explained? DAVID AXELROD: Well, I think it doesn't need to be explained if anybody reads her broader comments from that event at Duke.
... she was explaining the difference between the District Court and the Appeals Court. And what she said was the Appeals Court is where [ed: policy is made] uh, where where [ed: policy is made] legal theory, essentially, where [ed: policy is made] these uh these [ed: policies are made] more um [ed: policy is made] involved constitutional issues go, whereas the trial court, where she also served, was [ed: not where policy is made] ...
And continuing:
JUDY WOODRUFF: There was another comment that I'm already reading conservatives pointing to. Quote, she said, I guess, in 2002, "A wise Latina woman with a richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life when each is acting as a judge."
DAVID AXELROD: Well, I think what she's saying is that you are [ed: more likely to reach a better conclusion if you're a wise Latina than a white male] -- that you bring to the court not just your legal experience, which in her case is vast, but your personal experience and your life experience.
Just as Obama's favorite Supreme Court justices, like Stephen Breyer, explicitly ignore the Constitution for some "broader" purpose, Axelrod ignores what Sotomayor actually said to look at her "broader" meaning.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Backgrounds (Score:2)
As far as humble beginnings, etc, go, I'd have to say that Clarence Thomas at least equals, but probably blows right by Sotomayor.
I wonder how a "wise latina" stacks up against a "wise African-American?" Wait, no I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
We all come from humble beginnings. Some of those beginnings are just more obvious than others. Hell, I don't know about you, but I used to be a prehuman APE! And even recently, I was just a baby who couldn't even add single-digit integers or say my own name. Don't even get me started on adolescence ...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Among my top ten gripes is the race/sexism (Score:2)
In a meritocracy, the facts that she's female and Puerto Rican need to remain off-topic.
Racism is DNA-based decision making, and sexism favors the 23 chromosome.
Telling me to be happy about her as a the first Latina for SCOTUS sits as well as calling me racist if I don't vote BHO for POTUS.
And no, I'm not blown away by her record as a jurist.
Re: (Score:2)
I know little about her record. I am waiting to find out more in time. I am in no rush; we will find out, and we can make our judgments then.
(Hm, the last time I talked like this, it was about Harriet Miers. If she is as bad as many say, then hopefully she will face a similar fate.)
Re: (Score:2)
As with BHO himself, I'm trying to view this from a strategic, philosophical vantage. We can surrender, or just view this administration as the strongest test of what the country means since, oh, FDR.